A "FAIR" Tax is not the sales tax you support. It would be very unfair to the poor and middle class. Massive fraud would occur as people would buy and sell "under the table" to avoid the 23-30% tax rate that would have to be imposed. If you give a tax break to one group, you have to make it up elsewhere. That leaves it to the middle class and the poor

No. He's hitting voters that are idiots. Yes, its great to crusade for the first amendment , but people need to realize that everything else this douche thinks is wrong.
1. Putting relationships with every other country on hold is a HORRIBLE idea. We need to get the support of other countries again.
2. How can you be for separation of church and state but against gay marriage?
3. Libraries, schools and fire-stations are all socialized. So don't give me bullsh*t about not socializing medicine Ron.

actually ron paul is one of the only candidates who isnt attached to puppet strings, the only reason the main candidates ARE main candidates is becuz of the press they get which is controlled by the ppl who pull their strings, anyone who believes that ron paul doesnt have a chance or just isnt as good as the others is brainwashed by channels like fox news, in reality he is better

Paul is a dipsh*t for his comments at the debate but he's got the right idea about the UN and IRS, not to mention homeland security and the department of education. The UN is the most worthless organization and has accomplished nothing except writeing a few angry letters to countries who tell them to f*ck off, oh they gave some food to needy countries. also c*cks.

The UN doesn't give anything to anyone, it has no power, the individual countries that compose it do. If we give food/water money to the UN, they distribute it to needy countries and take all of the credit. We need to stop funding the UN because it is a direct threat to our freedoms. All it takes is one retarded president to dissolve the United States, don't think it can't happen, look at what's going on in Europe.

really? US - Canadian border security doesn't exist? then what the hell am I doing when I sit in line for 3 hours trying to cross the border from Detroit to Windsor? Why was my car searched both leaving and entering the US? Who are those people that look like police officers that I talked about the reason for my visit, told where I lived, and showed my passport to?

Holy sh*t, am I the only one who thought this was a complete f*cking joke?? LOL. I mean, the campaign promises are so ridiculous, it made me laugh out loud. And I'm sure we really want ghetto "vote for blah blah" written in the back of our car. Yeah, that's a real professional message. Well, still laughed my *ss off on this. 5 for you!

YTMND is for art, not advertisement. We have the front page for that.
Also, your crazy f*ck candidate wants to privatize everything and destroy all income taxes. The right likes to criticize the left on all sorts of things like their environmental policies because they ravage the U.S. infrastructure, but then they 180 and support guys like Ron Paul. This guy has the typical neocon view of leaving abortion and same-sex marriage to the states. He thinks the Constitution is replete with references to God.

No, he didn't. Dividing every political position into the nebulous blobs of "right" and "left" is ridiculous and meaningless. What is the "right's" position on interventionism? Well, the Bush administration is obviously very much for it, but many classical conservatives are against it. Oh, but they're in the Republican party, so they're on the right, SO THEY ARE THE ENEMY BY DEFAULT? Don't rationally consider any position, but immediately dismiss it because it's on the "right.

Getting rid of the income tax would be the best imaginable. The income tax was really the beginning of 'big government.' Anything that shrinks government from it's current abominable state is a positive thing.

Way to pull a strawman out of your ass. I never argued that everyone who disagrees with me is "on the right". I stated a generalization of attacks on the left wing by the right wing. Does that mean everyone does it? No. That's why it's called a generalization; you're supposed to lose meaning to an extent and assume that your audience has the capacity to make inferences.

I stated that he has a typical neoconservative view about abortion and same-sex marriage, and that's not incorrect. This is where he diverges from libertarians. When CaribDevist tried to correct you on that note, you went on with irrelevant blather about nebulous polarization. You're the one dragging emphasis to that, not me.

I didn't sh*t all over Ron Paul because he's running as a Republican. You just assumed I did because, based on your strawman, you probably don't have an actual argument. Pretty pathetic ad hominem there.

ron paul does not have a typical view of gay marriage. he believes it is a state's right issue, as you receive marriage licences from your state's gov't. He doesn't want the federal gov't to force states to recognize civil unions from other states. I don't totally agree with him on this but it's not as simple as "gay marriage is bad" which you are trying to pin on him. As to abortion, many libertarians are pro-life as they believe the fetus has the right to live and should be protected.

I will amend one thing I said: neocons don't really prefer leaving same-sex marriage to the states, since "neocon" is basically another word for Bush yes-men among the dwindling 20% remaining. Neoconservatives would federally ban same-sex marriage outright, whereas social conservatives would leave the issue to the states. This is one more socially progressive issue that should transcend individual states, like civil rights for blacks.

There are 1100 federal statutes that use the term "marriage" so it is far too ingrained in U.S. legislation to leave it up to the states. That's my view, at least. You're free to disagree, but I don't think Ron Paul really cares for same-sex marriage considering his idea that there's a war on religion.
All I ask is that people avoid trusting seemingly nice guys like Ron Paul and Obama simply because of their appearance. Checking their actual views and voting records is essential.

I have no problem with early term abortion, late term abortion is no different than murder. Why would a woman forgo early term abortion and wait until the baby's brain begins to develop? It boggles the mind. Later term abortion can and should be an option if the womans health is at risk or if she was for some reason unable/restricted from getting an early term abortion - Ron Paul is not anywhere close to being a Neo-Con

Not a neocon? He proposed a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship (H.J. Res 42). Now why would Ron Paul want to throw away a constitutional system that's worked for over 200 years? Additionally, he gave the only nay vote on H.R. 180, which would have restricted Congress from signing contracts with businesses that fund the destabilizing militia in Darfur. In fact, the legislation would have empowered states by authorizing them to divest from contracts they hold with these

businesses right now. The only reason he opposes this is because he thinks only voluntary action on the businesses' part would accomplish anything. His justification had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. DOES NOT want to fund genocide. It's like he doesn't realize that neoclassical economics isn't the end-all solution to all worldly problems.

His position on deportation of illegals is murky too. He sometimes says that widespread deportation is unrealistic yet he also says that he would actively deport all people who overstay their visas or break some other immigration law.
As for abortion, your view of what type of abortion is murder is subjective and while I agree with you on the practicality of when to get an abortion, it should not be our right to handle how someone else handles their body if they are mentally able.

"Not a neocon? He proposed a constitutional amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship (H.J. Res 42). "
You don't seem educated on what neo conservatism is. A number of the neo cons wan't to push amnesty and rid borders for a North American Union like George Bush. Almost none of them are tough on illegal immigration. Whatever the case; immigration isn't even strictly defined in the definition of neo conservatism. It's so absolutely ridiculous to call Ron Paul one.

You're right. I threw away the meaning of neoconservatism in that series of posts just to further bash Ron Paul, because I can't stand all the jizz flying around here about this guy. I do know that neoconservatives aren't tough on immigration, since businesses depend on them, but they don't give a sh*t about Latinos just the same. He shares a few neocon sentiments, but for the most part, he is indeed his very own precious kind of nut. I apologize for the neocon part.

Regardless, I don't understand why despite all of the genuine points I made against this guy, people just place a bunch of negative ratings on these posts without justification. I haven't negged a single post here, because I support discourse on the topic rather than try to hide the parts I don't like. So that's the end of my tirade. I'd rather learn about things in earnest than preach to these dimwits (not you). I appreciate your correction, and I'm done with this site.

Want to know how many times the Constitution actually mentions "God"? Hint: It's an integer in between -1 and 1.
This guy thinks that there's a war against religion. Is he batsh*t insane? Hell yes. Should you vote for him? No. Does it matter? Not really, he's not going to get the nomination anyway.
To put it shortly: WRONG.

Either he meant "god" figuratively (referring to the spirituality and religious freedom our founding fathers advocated) or he's trying to appeal to the huge % of Christians that comprise the American population. If you think about it, drawing the Christian voters by any means necessary may be the only way to defeat another "Bush" type politician from being re-elected. It's probably worth overlooking the mistake in light of all the significant changes Ron Paul supports.

He's running on the republican side because it's the only way he'll stand a chance. People always vote republican or democrat, in truth he's a libertarian. Also, Hillary is far worse than any republican canidate. She'd probably expand government toward socialism even more than it is now.

There are 1100 federal statutes that use the term "marriage" so it is far too ingrained in U.S. legislation to leave it up to the states. That's my view, at least. You're free to disagree, but I don't think Ron Paul really cares for same-sex marriage considering his idea that there's a war on religion.

Protecting privacy? Getting rid of the National ID card? Stopping needless 'Police Actions'? Focusing on ending America's finacial bankruptcy?
I may not be on the ball for ending birthright citizenship, but those other things sound pretty good. I'm preferring Edwards right now, because he sounds very Libertarian. But it's too early in the race.

I'm fairly neutral when it comes to politics (weird eh?) but this Ron Paul guy reminds me of old-school republicans. Arguably, the best kind. Although there is one thing I am not sure about. If he plans to oppose trade acts like NAFTA (sorry my knowledge of the others is sub par), won't that hurt both the US and it's neighboring countries?

No. While I'm all for trade agreements, these locale-based trade unions gradually increase their powers and subvert the rights of their member governments. The result is an overlord government completely (as opposed to mostly) controlled by special interests, where the citizens had no say in the creation of said government. Think along the lines of the EU.

police state loving little b!tch
no one made those morans to live on the coast below sea level in the historic path of hurricanes,
but a populist beaurocratic govt. continues to subsidize stupidity
read plato's republic sometime

Government, no matter what size, will allways be corrupt. It will always be a monopoly in anything it does. If you really care about the poor, and the needy, support aboloshing the IRS and government handouts, and support your local private charities who do far more for our nations needy than any government ever could.

I hate to break it to you, but private businesses on the scale needed to serve a modern country will always be corrupt. Competition and classical liberalism look great in theory, but are totally inadequate in practice.

Also, do you want to know why all this online buzz surrounding Ron Paul will never translate into votes on election day? Mounting a serious campaign requires a nationwide grassroots network of volunteers. Ron Paul and his supporters are driven by a philosophy which at its heart seeks to protect people's right to be as selfish as possible. I don't see too many volunteers being created by this movement.The furthest people will "volunteer" for paul will be digging up a story or 5ing a ytmnd.Good luck with gotv

There is nothing selfish about opposing big government. Libertarians have the intelligence and foresight to see what happens when you give government too much power. At the moment we're heading toward communism is small graduated steps. Freedom is always the best choice, for everybody, rich and poor. It is better to be poor here in the United States than to live in ANY communist country in this world. Social programs fail for obvious reasons and big governments always crave POWER at the expense of ppl.

The difference in corrupted private businesses and corrupted governments is that the businesses can't have you arrested, have you audited, or any other way to control your life. When people stop buying from a business, the business loses all its power.

You mean the book about a depression brought on by government intervention into the private economy, describing life for poor people over 50 years ago? Or is there some new Grapes of Wrath out that describes our millions of impoverished americans who avg 2 cars and 3 TVs per household?

That is what you are doing seary - thus the "voting down dissent" comment.
Plus Ron Paul votes like a neo-con. Look at his record on civil unions, abortion, medical issues, etc. If it clucks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a ....?

(sg1)
The only reason I am responding human-like is because you acted with some degree of tact. I can resect that. I can't remotely agree with your assertion here, though, that "voting" (by proxy a free democratic process) is even comparable to media censorship of public opinion (ala fox news).

we borrow $3 billion from china every day to support our overseas operations. If we brought our troops back home, we wouldn't need to pay income tax . Plus income tax is illegal and is a voluntary system. The country used to function perfectly without an income tax because evrything we need to supoprt the country is taxed elsewhere. Most of the money from income tax goes to the black budget.

Anyone who voted less than 5 on this is proving that they in fact are at a minimum mildly retarded; also that they are not deserving of life in what used to be a great country before bush f*cked it up, or maybe they should just die all together.

Maybe they'd rather live in a socialist over-controlling police state. Most of the candidates are in favor of passing laws that further reduce individual rights, while Ron Paul seems to be the only one who opposes them. Hillary, Obama, and Guliani all oppose the individual right to bear arms, but can't really do it outright. They'll start with registration of all firearms, further restrictions on what's legal and not legal, and slowly whittle us down to muzzle loading rifles...

...and after that, we'll lose the right to modern inline muzzleloaders. Gun making may become a cottage industry, I recently built my own 1911 from castings, and there's nothing keeping anyone else from doing the same.

Holy sh*t...Watch videos on youtube. That's some research numbnuts. How about doing actually research before you post propaganda. Stop watching Fox and go visit a part of the world that the Republican ideal has devastated.
ALSO - They say anything to get you to vote, and live up to nothing. That goes for the Dem party too.

Because constitutional conservatism is at the root of real republicans, not the liberal special interest *ss kissing that has taken over the party as of late, including our current prez.
Most uneducated voters will naturally vote Democrat because they think the government can actually take care of them if they need it. And the propaganda was born that the Republican party was for the rich and selfish because only through corrupt government socialist programs can we take care of those in need.

Of course for the more recent and even more inept voters you have the "Republicans are christians who want to force their religion on everyone." and therefor actually vote based on religious bias that has no basis in reality.

It's not that everybody who is poor is stupid, it's that when you try to help them with a socialist program the scummiest people of our society abuse it. It's like keeping one of those 'please take one' baskets out on halloween, somebody invariably dumps the whole thing in the bag. The majority of welfare recipients are true to the steriotype, they'd remain on welfare indefinitely if we allowed it. The minority who uses the program as originally intended gets screwed.

Why do people believe that government is the only solution for poverty? Government is the most inept solution of all. The real solution is generosity on an individual level. When you see a hungry person, you buy them food, when somebody needs help, you help them! Government is not the only force that can correct poverty, and when government tries to it ends up paying money to all the wrong people.

Studies have shown that those that vote R donate significantly more than those that vote D. Those that vote D think that it is the government's job to take care of those in need. That that vote R know the government is far too corrupt and inefficient to be trusted.

On the flip side of that, for those that do support the opinion that you stated (that the poor are too lazy and need to take care of themselves) what right have you to demand the government unconstitutionally steal money from them to redistribute? Are you saying that you believe if you think that everyone should be forced to give money to something, you have the right to call in the government to force it from people that disagree?

What if I believe everyone should give money to christian ministry overseas? Should I be able to vote in a government that takes your money by force then redistributes it to christian evangalism ministries? You probably would say that that would be unconstitutional AMIRITE? So are the current social government programs that we pay for.

as a conservative, i think that ron paul has many good points, but his idea on the war is completely stupid. if we pull out of the war, things will only worsen over there, then it will spread to the U.S. and we will be paying the consequences b/c we did not stay over there until we got the job done. and clearly, we are not done with the war yet.

And things are going smoothly with us over there? The only reason things will get worse in Iraq if we leave is because we illegally invaded it in the first place. And what "consequences" are you talking about? America is totally safe because we have the Homeland Security dictatorship protecting us from those mean little terrorists. Iraq is a quagmire. We haven't won or accomplished sh*t and never will with this ridiculous foreign policy.

We were never meant to win Iraq. Iraq allowed government to expand and take away your freedoms while people were blinded by patriotism (patriot act, real ID...). The federal reserve is also making a great deal of money from Iraq from interest they're getting for the monopoly money our government has them printing out. If our president were really going after 'terrorism', he would have first went after North Korea or Iran. He chose not to go after either of the bigwigs and instead went into Iraq

What the hell was Iraq threatening? They had no nuclear plan, no weapons of mass destruction, they weren't involved in 9/11 despite what you may have read. Iraq served to distract you while people in power made underhanded moves.

We had every right to go into Iraq. Saddam signed a CEASE fire aggrement that was violated time and time again by him for years before we invaded again. The war in Iraq was not started when Bush Jr went in, it was started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The war that we WON, was a continuation of that same war when Saddam violated the cease fire agreement. We took his regime out and we won. What we are currently doing now is trying to prevent another dangerous regime to take over, which is the smart thing to do.

Texaggie, we invaded iraq because he ceased to use american dollars as the reserve currency for trading his oil. What happens when no one is forced to use our central bank notes? Dollars tanks, economy follows. Iran is threatening to do the same thing, and as such, we have 5 strike groups in the gulf. Go learn politics from something other than fox news, please.

I dont watch fox news, and I also don't read leftist propaganda as you so easily fall for. I followed the Iraq situation since we left the first time and I voted for Bush Jr because he was the only man with the balls to go back into Iraq and follow through with the ceasefire threat. Socialist though must have some evil capitalist scheme to blame for all wars because their hippie parents taught them so.

Ever since we deposed Saddam, the Republicans have said that if we pull out things will get worse, and things have done nothing but get worse anyway. Our being there is the sole reason why al-Qaeda has a foothold in Mesopotamia. Arguments about justification of the initial invasion aside, the occupation has been 100% bad for Iraq. At some point we have to stop holding their hands and let them run their own affairs.

Had we left Iraq after we finished the war, Lefties would be crying now about how bad it is in Iraq, because as bad as it is now, it would be 100 times worse, not for Iraqis but for the world. I, for one, and not willing to appease a few in exchange for another madman dictator bent on nuclear power, and with the money that any Iraq government can make in oil, it would be easy to buy a nuclear program.
Al queda is strong because we havent killed enough of em. That is the only cure for extremism like that.

Even if things DO worsen over there, how is it any of our damn business? And how would it ever spread to the U.S. at all? Even more, what is this "job" we need to get done? Please, elaborate before I brand you a Robotican.